appellate court for plain error (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

appellate court for plain error in Ohio

11 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2024–2025 11 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)green
ohio · 2020 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024See State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-3051, ¶ 17-18 .

2024See State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-3051, ¶ 17-18 .

44

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Long green
ohio · 1978
2 sentences

2025Intervention by an appellate court for plain error “is warranted only under exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice.” Id. at ¶ 8, citing State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.

2025Intervention by an appellate court for plain error “is warranted only under exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice.” Id. at ¶ 8, citing State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.

112024–2025
United States v. Dominguez Benitez green
scotus · 2004
2 sentences

2024Intervention by an appellate court for plain error “is warranted only under exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice.” Id. at ¶ 8, citing State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶43} In order to show that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice - the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22, citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-83 , (2004) (co

2024Intervention by an appellate court for plain error “is warranted only under exceptional circumstances to Perry County, Case No. 24 CA 0002 9 prevent injustice.” Id. at ¶ 8, citing State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶23} In order to show that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice - the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22, citing United States v. Dominguez Beni

42024–2025
State v. Rogers green
ohio · 2015
2 sentences

2025In order to show that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice - the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 , citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-83 , 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 , (2004) (construing Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), the federal analog to Crim.R. 52(B)).

2025In order to show that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice - the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 , citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-83 , 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 , (2004) (construing Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), the federal analog to Crim.R. 52(B)).

12025–2025

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.02 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.05 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 11 (2024–2025) TN 8 (2018–2021)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check